MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Papillomavirus Transmission and Persistence in Pregnant Women and Neonates

2023· article· en· W4377221022 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pranamika Khayargoli, Joseph Niyibizi, Marie‐Hélène Mayrand, François Audibert, Patricia Monnier, Paul Brassard, Louise Laporte, Julie Lacaille, Monica Zahreddine, Isabelle Girard, Diane Francoeur, Ana Carceller, Jacques Lacroix, François Coutlée, Helen Trottier, François Coutlée

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsPregnancySex organGynecologyProspective cohort studyHuman papillomavirusGestationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection during pregnancy and its risk of transmission to newborns are not well documented. Objective: To ascertain the prevalence of HPV in pregnant women, the risk of HPV detection in the placenta and in children at birth, and the probability that HPV detected at birth may persist in newborns. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Human Papillomavirus Perinatal Transmission and Risk of HPV Persistence Among Children (HERITAGE) study was a prospective cohort study that recruited participants between November 8, 2010, and October 16, 2016. Participant follow-up visits were completed on June 15, 2017. Participants, which included pregnant women of at least 18 years of age and at 14 weeks or earlier of gestation, were recruited from 3 academic hospitals in Montreal, Québec, Canada. Laboratory and statistical analysis were completed on November 15, 2022. Exposures: HPV DNA testing on self-collected vaginal and placental samples. Among children of mothers positive for HPV, conjunctival, oral, pharyngeal, and genital samples were collected for HPV DNA testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaginal HPV DNA testing was done on self-collected vaginal samples obtained among pregnant women recruited during their first trimester of pregnancy and in the third trimester for those who had HPV-positive samples in the first trimester. HPV DNA testing was also done on placental samples (swabs and biopsies) collected after birth in all participants. HPV DNA testing among children included conjunctival, oral, pharyngeal, and genital samples collected in children of HPV-positive mothers at birth, 3 months, and 6 months of age. Results: A total of 1050 pregnant women (mean [SD] age, 31.3 [4.7] years) were included in this study. Prevalence of HPV in pregnant women at recruitment was 40.3% (95% CI, 37.3%-43.3%). Among the 422 HPV-positive women, 280 (66.4%) harbored at least 1 high-risk genotype, and 190 (45.0%) were coinfected with multiple genotypes. HPV was detected in 10.7% of placentas (92 of 860; 95% CI, 8.8%-12.9%) overall, but only 3.9% of biopsies (14 of 361) on the fetal side under the amniotic membrane were positive. Neonatal HPV detection (at birth and/or at 3 months) was 7.2% (95% CI, 5.0%-10.3%) overall, with the most frequent site of infection being the conjunctiva (3.2%; 95% CI, 1.8%-5.6%), followed by the mouth (2.9%; 95% CI, 1.6%-5.2%), the genital area (2.7%; 95% CI, 1.4%-4.9%), and the pharynx (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.2%-2.5%). Importantly, all HPV detected in children at birth cleared before the age of 6 months. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, vaginal HPV was frequently detected in pregnant women. Perinatal transmission was infrequent, and in this cohort, no infection detected at birth persisted at 6 months. Although HPV was detected in placentas, it remains difficult to differentiate contamination vs true infection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207